Acedemic article on unifying personality theories
Personality Theories Facilitate
Integrating the Five Principles
and Deducing Hypotheses for
Testing
Salvatore R. Maddi
University of California, Irvine
In presenting their view of personality science,
McAdams and Pals (April 2006)
elaborated the importance of five principles
for building an integrated science of personality.
These principles are stances on
evolution and human nature, dispositional
signatures, characteristic adaptations, life
narratives, and the differential role of culture.
Their main emphasis involved differentiating
these principles and indicating
that they are all relevant to understanding
personality. The discussion by McAdams
and Pals certainly illuminates the various
aspects of personality, but it also cries out
for some greater, more systematic integration
of the five principles into particular
kinds of personality. It is not yet possible,
in their approach, to identify different types
of personality orientation and to evaluate
the relative effectiveness of these orientations.
As presented, their approach may be
considered a start but hardly a finish.
Let me suggest that the metatheory of
personality theories that I have proposed
(Maddi, 1969/1996) could accelerate the
needed integration of the five proposed
principles. The metatheory indicates that,
regardless of their specific content, theories
of personality include core, developmental,
peripheral, and data statements. At the
core level, assumptions are made about
specific, unlearned characteristics all people
bring into life that express the overall
purpose of human living. Whether or not
particular personality theories explicitly
express it, the core level is considered relevant
to meeting evolutionary pressures.
Like core statements in other areas (in social,
biological, and physical sciences),
those in personality are never, and probably
never can be, tested in any direct, empirical
fashion. The main utility of core
statements is that they help tie together the
other, more concrete statements that are
also part of the theory.
The developmental statement is where
personality theories conceptualize the early
interactions between a person and significant
others that have a formative influence
on learned aspects of personality. The
young person acts initially out of the core
tendency, and those around him or her react
supportively or punitively. Supportive reactions
facilitate full expression of the core
in the person’s functioning, whereas punitive
reactions stifle and twist expression of
the core. In their relevant discussion of
“characteristic adaptations” (pp. 208–209),
McAdams and Pals (2006) did not go this
far, though personality theories do.
The end result of this learning process
is depicted in the peripheral statement of a
personality theory. This concerns the habitual,
learned modes of functioning, such as
motives, traits, or defenses, that are readily
apparent in the person as he or she becomes
an adult. Perhaps this is what McAdams
and Pals (2006) called the “dispositional
signature” (p. 207), but it would be helpful
to be more precise. In this regard, personality
theories typically specify personality
types, which are telltale combinations of
motives, traits, and defenses. One personality
type is identified as the fullest expression
of the core tendency, whereas the others
are more limited, more twisted, or less
fulfilling expressions.
The data statement of personality theories
involves the concrete, everyday expressions
in living (e.g., actions, reactions,
descriptions of self and of living) of the
peripheral characteristics contained in the
personality types. This is something like
what McAdams and Pals (2006) called
“life narratives” (p. 209), but they made the
useful addition of the role of culture. Although
personality theories have not tended
to do this explicitly, it is reasonable to
regard one’s sense of who one is and what
life is all about as one of the options presented
by one’s culture. Once again, personality
theories would regard the life expressions
of the ideal personality type as
far more fulfilling and evolutionarily valuable
than those characteristic of nonideal
personality types.
Hopefully, working with the metatheory
of personality theories I have identified
(Maddi, 1969/1996) will tie together
the categories of functioning identified by
McAdams and Pals (2006). Rather than
just identifying the existence of “characteristic
adaptations,” it is more precise to conceptualize
how the particular interaction—
between the youngster acting out of
unlearned (core) characteristics and the significant
others reacting out of cultural exigencies
and their own developed personalities—
can lead to a specific personality
type that fulfills or stifles the core tendency.
This conceptual precision also facilitates
empirical evaluation of personality
theories by permitting hypotheses to be deduced
from the integrated assumptions of
each theory and tested. For example,
Freud’s (1925a, 1925b) theory specifies
58 January 2007 ● American Psychologist
that the core tendency is to maximize expression
of our inherently selfish and antisocial
sexual instinct while simultaneously
minimizing the frustrating punishment and
guilt that will result if we and others know
about our selfish natures. Ideal development
is when parents balance their support
and love of the child with control of his or
her selfishness. This leads to the ideal, or
genital, character type, in which there is
much expression of selfish needs but in a
manner (through socially acceptable forms
of selfishness, and personal defenses) that
appears admirable to self and others. But in
development, if parents are either too punitive
or too indulgent, one or another of
the nonideal personality types (oral, anal,
phallic) occurs, and this stifles expression
of selfish, sexual urges, or leads to massive
guilt, or both. Needless to say, the “characteristic
adaptations” and “life narratives”
attendant on the ideal and nonideal personality
types will differ sharply.
As another example, Rogers (1961)
specified the actualizing of inherent potentialities
as the core tendency. Developmentally,
as long as significant others
support and accept the person’s expressions
of his or her core, there is continual
openness, defenselessness, and fulfillment.
What is learned from this is the
ideal personality, called the fully functioning
person. In contrast, if others react
punitively, conditions of worth and defenses
ensue, and the nonideal, learned
personality type of maladjustment ensues.
Once again, the “characteristic adaptations”
and “life narratives” of these
two types will differ greatly.
The value of taking the metatheory
of personality theories seriously is that it
results not only in conceptual clarity but
facilitation of empirical testing as well.
Within any theory of personality, one can
test whether the measurable traits, motives,
and defenses fit together as would
be expected in the conceptualized personality
types, and whether the proposed
ideal type leads to a better life than do the
nonideal types. This is probably as close
to actually testing the evolutionary implications
of the theory as one will ever get,
as the ideal type best expresses the core
tendency, and one can see what kind of
life this leads to in comparison with that
produced by the nonideal types. This
level of theoretical specificity also facilitates
empirical comparison of the various
personality theories in terms of the
relative effectiveness and ineffectiveness
of living that ensue from their ideal and
nonideal personality types, respectively.
REFERENCES
Freud, S. (1925a). Instincts and their vicissitudes.
In S. Freud, Collected papers (Vol. 4).
London: Institute for Psychoanalysis and
Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1925b). Some character types met
with in psychoanalytic work. In S. Freud, Collected
papers (Vol. 4). London: Institute for
Psychoanalysis and Hogarth Press.
Maddi, S. R. (1996). Personality theories: A
comparative analysis (6th ed.). Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press. (Original work
published 1969)
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new
Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative
science of personality. American Psychologist,
61, 204–217.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Reply With Quote
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
